Getting back to the subject at hand: The 'global warming' crowd is supposedly using the same statistical 'science' that predicted the 2006 hurricane season would all-but-certainly be a 'more active than usual' season---completely failing to foresee the El Nino that developed and the impact of Saharan dust in the Atlantic Basin.
We can't trust next week's (let alone next year's) weather forecast; and these geniuses pretend to know that A.) Atypical 'global warming' is unquestionably happening; B.) It's caused almost certainly by humans; and C.) Kyoto and other economic suicide pacts will definitely reverse it, "but only if we act fast, while supplies last". Science me arse. It's a sales pitch, just not for the merchandize you see in the window... They give themselves away with all that semi-subliminal blather about "social equity" in their "scientific" report... - Bob On Feb 6, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Michael Madigan wrote: > If he hates the bearing of arms, he's really going to > hate the anti-abortion amendment. > > > > > --- Robert Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 6, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: >> >>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 1:23 PM, David Crooks wrote: >>> >>>> How can anyone prove that??? Did they have the >> same thermometers 200 >>>> years ago that are in use today??? There is no >> way!!! >>>> >>>>> Some global warming. >>>> >>>> I agree. I was cold in Albany, NY 200 years ago >> and guess what? >>>> It is >>>> still cold in Albany, NY. LOL! >>> >>> I love how some people only read half of >> something. They see a term >>> such as "global warming" and completely miss the >> 'global' part of it. >>> Sort of like the same brilliant minds who read the >> 2nd Amendment as >>> guaranteeing the unfettered right to keep and bear >> arms, completely >>> missing the "well-regulated militia" part. >> >> Or how some people read the whole part of something, >> entirely out of >> context. >> >> The purpose of the 'well-regulated militia' was to >> protect the people >> from an oppressive government, and was not intended >> to establish a >> particular "well-regulated militia", as some seem >> curiously to argue. >> Rather, by making the right to keep and bear arms >> universal to all >> citizens in the Bill of Rights, and not just to some >> special >> "militia" class, this formulation allowed for the >> people to self- >> organize into "well-regulated" militia as needed to >> defend themselves >> from tyranny. In general, our founders were into >> "self- >> regulation" (particularly of the small-r >> "republican" variety), not >> nanny government. >> >> The enhancements to the federal power and >> consolidation under a >> single federal government under the Constitution was >> an economic >> necessity. Nevertheless, the founders still saw fit >> to guarantee each >> state in the union a "republican" form of >> government, and each >> citizen a right to keep and bear arms. They hardly >> envisioned the >> federal government confiscating guns from everyone >> except the police >> or army. Maybe one or two of them thought that was a >> good idea (after >> all, they did discuss the various alternatives, and >> even my hero >> Hamilton had a brain fart about re-establishing >> monarchy), but the >> consensus was to state explicitly a right to keep an >> bear arms to >> all, and the reason sited was not just so the >> government could >> regulate some once and future national guard or >> whatever, but rather >> because an oppressive government could only be >> countered by a people >> armed to defend themselves. >> >> Context Ed is just as important as the precise >> wording of a phrase. >> >> - Bob >> >>> >>> -- Ed Leafe >>> -- http://leafe.com >>> -- http://dabodev.com >>> >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
